HB 900 Lawsuit

Case 1:23-cv-00858 Document 6 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
BOOK PEOPLE, INC., VBK, INC. d/b/a §

BLUE WILLOW BOOKSHOP, §
AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS §
ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION OF §
AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, AUTHORS §
GUILD, INC., COMIC BOOK LEGAL §
DEFENSE FUND, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § CASE NO. 1:23-cv-858
§
MARTHA WONG in her official capacity §
as chair of the Texas State Library and §
Archives Commission, KEVEN ELLIS in §
his official capacity as chair of the Texas §
Board of Education, MIKE MORATH in §
his official capacity as Commissioner of §
Education, §
§
Defendants. §
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................ 1
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 7
A. Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Book Ban. ............................................. 7
B. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that the Book Ban is
unconstitutional. ..................................................................................................... 9
1. The Book Ban compels speech in violation of the First
Amendment because it requires Plaintiffs to express the
government’s views. .................................................................................. 9
2. The Book Ban is unconstitutionally vague because its unclear and
confusing terms fail to provide explicit standards and would cause
disparate results........................................................................................ 11
3. The Book Ban is an unconstitutional prior restraint because it
prevents the distribution of constitutionally protected works
without judicial review. ........................................................................... 13
4. The Book Ban is facially unconstitutional because it is a content-
based regulation not narrowly tailored to a compelling government
interest. ..................................................................................................... 15
5. The Book Ban is unconstitutionally overbroad because it restricts
and chills a substantial amount of protected speech. ............................... 17
6. The Book Ban unconstitutionally delegates government authority
to regulate speech to private entities and individuals. ............................. 19
C. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury because their constitutional rights
will be violated unless the Book Ban is enjoined. ............................................... 19
D. The balance of equities and public interest weighs heavily in favor of
enjoining the Book Ban because the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs
and other Texans will be infringed if a preliminary injunction is not
granted.................................................................................................................. 20
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................... 21
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,

143 S. Ct. 2298 (2023) ...................................................................................................9, 10, 11
Agency for Int’l Devel. v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l.,

570 U.S. 205 (2013) .................................................................................................................11
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal.,

535 U.S. 234 (2002) .................................................................................................................18
Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico,
457 U.S. 853 (1982) .................................................................................................................18
Book Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,

372 U.S. 58 (1963) .............................................................................................................14, 19
Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n,

564 U.S. 786 (2011) ...........................................................................................................16, 17
Campbell v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd.,

64 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1995) .....................................................................................................19
Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist.,

339 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................13
De Leon v. Perry,
975 F. Supp. 2d 632 (W.D. Tex. 2014), aff'd sub nom. De Leon v. Abbott, 791
F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................................20
Elrod v. Burns,
427 U.S. 347 (1976) .................................................................................................................19
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville,

422 U.S. 205 (1975) .................................................................................................................16
Freedman v. State of Md.,

380 U.S. 51 (1965) ...................................................................................................................15
Ginsberg v. State of N. Y.,

390 U.S. 629 (1968), modified by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) .................4, 14, 16
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas,

390 U.S. 676 (1968) .................................................................................................................11
Johnson v. United States,

576 U.S. 591 (2015) .................................................................................................................13
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION iii

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson,

343 U.S. 495 (1952) .................................................................................................................13
Knox v. Serv. Empl. Int’l Union,

567 U.S. 298 (2012) .................................................................................................................10
Martin v. City of Struthers,

319 U.S. 141 (1943) .................................................................................................................18
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart,

427 U.S. 539 (1976) .................................................................................................................14
Nken v. Holder,
556 U.S. 418 (2009) .................................................................................................................20
Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss.,

697 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2012) .........................................................................................7, 19, 20
Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe,

610 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................15
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.,

576 U.S. 155 (2015) ...........................................................................................................15, 16
Reno v. ACLU,
521 U.S. ...................................................................................................................................12
Reno v. ACLU,
521 U.S. 844 (1997) .................................................................................................................16
Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin,

522 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................11
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.,

547 U.S. 47 (2006) ...................................................................................................................10
Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n,

492 U.S. 115 (1989) .................................................................................................................16
Seals v. McBee,
898 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................18
Smith v. Goguen,
415 U.S. 566 (1974) .................................................................................................................11
State of Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A.,

518 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1975) .....................................................................................................7
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION iv

Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex.,

121 F. Supp. 2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000) ....................................................................................19
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,

573 U.S. 149 (2014) ...................................................................................................................8
Ex parte Tucci,
859 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1993)..........................................................................................................1
U.S. v. United Foods, Inc.,

533 U.S. 405 (2001) ...................................................................................................................9
United States v. Hansen,

143 S. Ct. 1932 (2023) .............................................................................................................18
Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance,

587 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1978), aff'd, 445 U.S. 308 (1980)........................................................14
Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n.,

484 U.S. 383 (1988) ...................................................................................................................8
W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,

319 U.S. 624 (1943) ...................................................................................................................9
Zimmerman v. City of Austin,

Tex., 881 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................7
Statutes
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..............................................................................................................................1
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 28.002(a)............................................................................................2, 3, 5, 11
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.021 ....................................................................................................1, 2, 11
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.21(a)................................................................................................3, 15, 16
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.001 ..........................................................................................................1, 2
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.001(3) .......................................................................................................11
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.002 ......................................................................................................1, 2, 8
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.002(b) .............................................................................................6, 13, 20
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.002(c)........................................................................................................10
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.0021 ..................................................................................................1, 4, 12
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.003 ..............................................................................................................1
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.004 ..............................................................................................................1
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.005 ..........................................................................................................1, 2
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.006 ..............................................................................................................1
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.007 ..............................................................................................................1
TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.008 ..............................................................................................................1
TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.21 ...................................................................................................3, 5, 12, 16
TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.21(a)(1)..........................................................................................................4
TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.21(a)(4)..........................................................................................................3
TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.25 .........................................................................................................2, 5, 15
TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.25(a)(2) .........................................................................................................2
Other Authorities
U.S. Constitution.................................................................................................................... passim
Texas Constitution ...........................................................................................................................1
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65 ........................................................................................................................1
Claire Goodman, Katy ISD halts all library book purchases, new books stored,
HOUSTON CHRONICLE (June 27, 2023) ......................................................................................8
Danika Ellis, All 850 Books Texas Lawmaker Matt Krause Wants To Book Ban:
An Analysis...............................................................................................................................17
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION vi

Plaintiffs Book People, Inc., VBK, Inc. d/b/a Blue Willow Bookshop, American
Booksellers Association, Association of American Publishers, Authors Guild, Inc., and Comic
Book Legal Defense Fund (“Plaintiffs”) file this Motion for Preliminary Injunction under Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 65 (“Motion”) and ask this Court to enjoin the enforcement of H.B. 900 1 under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 because it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
This case concerns the looming implementation of H.B. 900, a recently enacted law that
bans books deemed “sexually explicit” and restricts access to books deemed “sexually relevant”
in public schools in violation of the First Amendment (the “Book Ban”). The Book Ban burdens
Plaintiffs—a coalition of booksellers, publishers, and authors—with impossible demands, compels
their speech on controversial topics, implicates them in the recall and removal from schools of
books deemed “sexually explicit,” and grants the State licensing authority over what appears in
school libraries. If booksellers resist these infringements on their First Amendment rights, the State
will bar them from conducting business with any Texas public school and subject them to public
censure. As for publishers and authors, they have no recourse and must live with the State banning
their books and labeling them as unacceptable for minors. To preserve the fundamental free-speech
rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, 2 the Book Ban must be enjoined.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Book Ban on June 13, 2023, and it is scheduled to take effect
1
The text of H.B. 900, known as the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational
Resources (“READER”) Act, is attached as Exhibit A. H.B. 900 is codified as proposed Tex. Educ.
Code §§ 33.021, 35.001-002, 35.0021, 35.003-008.
2
See Ex parte Tucci, 859 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Tex. 1993) (freedom of expression protections in the Texas
Constitution are broader than the U.S. Constitution).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1

on September 1, 2023. The Book Ban requires that a “library material vendor” 3 rate all “library
material” 4 previously sold to a “school district or open-enrollment charter school” (“public
schools”) as “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” based on vague and ambiguous content-
based criteria. 5 See proposed TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 33.021, 35.001, 35.002, 35.005. 6 The Book Ban
offers three possible book ratings: “sexually relevant,” “sexually explicit,” or “no rating.” These
ratings ultimately determine a bookseller’s ability to sell them to schools and consequently,
students’ ability to access them. Books deemed “sexually relevant” may only be accessed “outside
the school library” with written parental consent, while books deemed “sexually explicit” are
banned entirely. §§ 35.002, 35.005.
“Sexually relevant material” is defined as “any communication, language, or material,
including a written description, illustration, photographic image, video image, or audio file, other
than library material directly related to the curriculum required under Section 28.002(a), that
describes, depicts, or portrays sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25, Penal Code.” §
35.001(3). The vast definition of “sexual conduct” 7 seemingly encompasses all books that mention
any sexual-related topic. Plaintiffs fundamentally oppose these subjective standards and sweeping
restrictions on students’ access to these materials. Specifically, members of the Authors Guild have
3
A “library material vendor” is defined as “any entity that sells library material to a public primary
or secondary school in this state.” 35.001(1) (hereinafter, “bookseller”). This definition could
apply broadly to wholesalers, distributors, independent bookstores, online retailers, e-book sellers,
publishers, authors, and others.
4
“Library material” is not defined in the Book Ban. Read literally, “library material” could include
an expansive collection of items, such as books, reference works, magazines, newspapers, and
audio and audiovisual materials, in both physical and digital formats (hereinafter, “books”).
5
The State does not provide any funding to help booksellers complete this onerous task.
6
Below references to the Education Code refer to proposed sections.
7
“Sexual conduct” means “sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual
intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the
genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.” TEX. PEN. CODE
§ 43.25(a)(2).

serious concerns that even a “sexually relevant” rating, which will be posted on Texas Education
Agency’s (“TEA”) website, could unduly stigmatize their books and affect their ability to sell or
distribute them in the future. 8
While the Book Ban exempts material “related to the curriculum” based on § 28.002(a) of
the Education Code, that Section provides little guidance for what the exemption covers. 9 Because
there is no statewide curriculum in Texas, there is no way to know what material is “related to the
curriculum” across all 1,025 Texas school districts. Curricula vary from classroom-to-classroom
within a district and from day-to-day or year-to-year within a classroom, requiring consistent
reevaluation. 10 Even if there was a statewide standard, it would be unclear what is “related to” it.
The definition of “sexually explicit material” includes the above definition of “sexually
relevant material” and requires that the depiction be presented “in a way that is patently offensive,
as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code.” §§ 33.021(a); 35.001(2). That definition requires
Plaintiffs to determine whether a book is “so offensive on its face as to affront current community
standards of decency.” TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.21(a)(4). But the Book Ban, confusingly, does not
tell Plaintiffs whether this community standard is based on Austin, Texas, or Onalaska, Texas—
or any of the more than 1,200 incorporated municipalities across Texas. Thus, Plaintiffs lack clarity
to determine whether a book conforms to current community standards. 11
8
See Declaration of Mary E. Rasenberger, CEO of the Guild, attached as Exhibit B (“Rasenberger
Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-12.
9
§ 28.002(a) provides only a general list of subjects that curriculum must cover.
10
Further, if a teacher brings a book from home to use in her lessons, would that book be presumed
to “relate to the curriculum” when it enters the classroom? How would Plaintiffs even be aware of
its use, much less whether it is considered “related to the curriculum” when attempting to perform
their rating obligations? Questions abound. See Declaration of Valerie Koehler, owner of Blue
Willow Bookshop, attached as Exhibit C (“Koehler Decl.”) ¶ 19; Declaration of Matthew Stratton,
Deputy General Counsel of AAP, attached as Exhibit D (“Stratton Decl.”) ¶ 11.a-b.
11
See Rejsek Decl. ¶ 17; Grogan Decl. ¶ 9; Stratton Decl. ¶ 11.g.

Besides assessing the current unspecified community standards, Plaintiffs must “perform
a contextual analysis” 12 before finding that books are “patently offensive.” § 35.0021. To perform
the analysis, the Book Ban contains three subjective factors:
(1) the explicitness or graphic nature of a description or depiction of

sexual conduct contained in the material;
(2) whether the material consists predominantly of or contains multiple

repetitions of depictions [but not descriptions or portrayals] of
sexual or excretory organs or activities; and
(3) whether a reasonable person would find that the material

intentionally panders to, titillates, or shocks the reader.
§ 35.0021(b). The Book Ban prescribes a balancing test in which Plaintiffs must “weigh and
balance” each of these factors while recognizing that each instance “may present a unique mix of
factors.” § 35.0021(c). The Book Ban also instructs booksellers to “consider the full context . . .
recognizing that contextual determinations are necessarily highly fact-specific and require the
consideration of contextual characteristics that may exacerbate or mitigate the offensiveness of the
material.” § 35.0021(d). Departing from any constitutionally recognized standards, Plaintiffs are
unclear how to weigh the various factors outlined above and how to perform the required confusing
contextual analyses. See Declaration of Charley Rejsek, CEO of BookPeople, attached as Exhibit
E (“Rejsek Decl.”) ¶ 17; Stratton Decl. ¶ 11.f. Plaintiffs do not believe their members or employees
have the time or the training to properly make these assessments, which could lead to the banning
12
The Book Ban will cause the prohibition of swaths of non-obscene, constitutionally protected
books. In determining whether a book is “sexually explicit,” booksellers need not consider whether
the book “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value,” which is
an element of obscenity for minors. See Ginsberg v. State of N. Y., 390 U.S. 629 (1968), modified
by Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973); TEX. PEN. CODE §43.21(a)(1). Instead, a book can
be banned if it depicts “sexual conduct” in a way that is “patently offensive,” regardless of whether
it has societal value, and need not be considered as a whole.

of many classic works of literature. 13 See Rejsek Decl. ¶ 17; Koehler Decl. ¶¶ 13, 18; Declaration
of David Grogan, Director of the American Booksellers for Free Expression, Advocacy and Public
Policy, attached as Exhibit F (“Grogan Decl.”) ¶¶ 7, 11.; Stratton Decl. ¶ 9; Trexler Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.
After considering the curriculum under Tex. Educ. Code § 28.002(a), the relevant
definitions under Penal Code §§ 43.21 and 43.25, weighing the Book Ban’s three principal factors
under § 35.0021(b), and performing the two required contextual analyses under §§ 35.0021(c)-(d),
Plaintiffs must then issue a rating for each work they have sold or could sell in the future. A list of
each bookseller’s ratings as will be posted “in a conspicuous place” on TEA’s website “as soon as
practicable.” § 35.002(e). This process begins with the rapidly approaching 2023-2024 school year
and repeats each year thereafter. Id. § 35.002(d).
If TEA disagrees with any ratings, it may compel a bookseller to accept the agency’s
revised rating or face reprisal from the State. Upon written notice of TEA’s corrected rating, 14
booksellers are required to revise their ratings “to the agency’s corrected rating” within 60 days. §
35.003(b)(1). Presumably, this revised rating is then added to each bookseller’s public entries on
TEA’s website. If a bookseller refuses to do so, it will be banned from selling any books to public
schools. § 35.003(d). Plaintiffs are concerned that these revised ratings—which booksellers are
coerced to accept by statute—will be interpreted by the public as Plaintiffs’ own independent
rating when it is, in fact, speech compelled by the State. See Rejsek Decl. ¶¶ 19-21; Koehler Decl.
13
The Book Ban would appear to restrict access—or ban entirely—such classic works as Twelfth
Night, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men, Ulysses, Jane Eyre,
Maus, Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation, The Canterbury Tales, I Know Why the
Caged Bird Sings, Lonesome Dove, and even the Bible. See Debate on Tex. H.B.900 in the House
Committee on Public Education, 88th Leg. (Mar. 21, 2023); Declaration of Jeff Trexler, Executive
Director of the CBLDF, attached as Exhibit G (“Trexler Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-9.
14
The Book Ban does not require TEA to provide any justification for its decision to overrule a
bookseller’s rating or the right to appeal the rating change.

¶¶ 17, 21-22; Grogan Decl. ¶ 15; Trexler Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16.
If a bookseller refuses to accept the State’s compelled rating as its own, it will not only be
prohibited from selling books to public schools, but it will also face public censure by the State.
Under the Book Ban, TEA must post a list of booksellers who fail to assent to the agency’s
compelled ratings “in a conspicuous place” on its website. § 35.003(c). School districts are barred
from purchasing books from these blacklisted booksellers, who have no recourse for the loss of
business. §§ 35.003(d); 35.004. This Hobson’s Choice requires booksellers accept the State’s
compelled speech as their own or sacrifice their ability to conduct business with school districts.
Plaintiffs stand to suffer significant financial—and reputational—damages from their loss of
business with school districts. See Rejsek Decl. ¶¶ 20-22; Koehler Decl. ¶¶ 14-16, 21-25; Grogan
Decl. ¶¶ 19-20; Rasenberger Decl. ¶ 7; Trexler Decl. ¶ 12. Yet the Book Ban bars booksellers from
bringing claims against school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, or their employees for
any damages caused by it. § 35.004.
Plaintiffs are not only banned from selling books rated as “sexually explicit” in the future,
but they must “issue a recall” for all such books they have ever sold and that are still “in active
use” by a public school. § 35.002(b). Plaintiffs, some of whom have been in business for decades,
are unable to comply with this onerous requirement because they do not have records of every
book they have ever sold to a public school. See Rejsek Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Koehler Decl. ¶ 7; Grogan
Decl. ¶ 6; Stratton Decl. ¶ 5. Nor would they know which books are “in active use” in a school.
See Rejsek Decl. ¶ 11; Koehler Decl. ¶ 9; Stratton Decl. ¶ 6.
Even if they could comply with this unfunded mandate, Plaintiffs are conscripted into
aiding the State in the removal of books from libraries based on content-based criteria with which
Plaintiffs sincerely disagree and could lead to public backlash against booksellers or even liability

from authors. Such a recall would not only be antithetical to the First Amendment, but Plaintiffs
are also concerned it would be interpreted as their own speech, when, in fact, their speech is being
compelled by the State if they want to continue selling books, even where Plaintiffs specifically
disagree with the State’s rating. See Rejsek Decl. ¶¶ 19-21; Koehler Decl. ¶¶ 17, 21-22; Grogan
Decl. ¶ 22; Stratton Decl. ¶ 14; Trexler Decl. ¶¶ 15-16. Further, although the Book Ban clearly
requires booksellers to submit by April 1, 2024 a list of all “sexually relevant” and “sexually
explicit” material it has sold in the past that is still in active use by school districts, it is unclear
whether Plaintiffs can sell books to public schools before compiling such a list.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction if they establish: (1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is
not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm that the injunction might cause to
the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Opulent Life Church
v. City of Holly Springs, Miss., 697 F.3d 279, 288 (5th Cir. 2012). These elements are not examined
in isolation but balanced in consideration of each other. State of Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518
F.2d 175, 180 (5th Cir. 1975). As shown below, Plaintiffs can satisfy each element and are thus
entitled to a preliminary injunction.
A. Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Book Ban.
Plaintiffs have standing to facially challenge the Book Ban. Because Plaintiffs have sold
books to public schools and intend to continue selling books to public schools, they will be subject
to the Book Ban’s unconstitutional requirements. See Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Tex., 881 F.3d
378, 388 (5th Cir. 2018) (to establish an injury sufficient to raise a facial challenge under the First
Amendment, “a plaintiff must produce evidence of an intention to engage in a course of conduct

arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by statute”); see Rejsek Decl. ¶ 4;
Koehler Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Grogan Decl. ¶ 5; Stratton Decl. ¶ 4; Rasenberger Decl. ¶ 6; Trexler Decl. ¶
5. The Book Ban also violates the constitutional rights of others not before the Court, such as
students and other booksellers, publishers, and authors, and chills their protected speech. See
Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n., 484 U.S. 383, 392–93 (1988).
Plaintiffs also have standing because of their injuries. To establish standing, a plaintiff must
show an (1) “injury in fact,” (2) a sufficient “causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of,” and (3) a “likel[ihood]” that the injury “will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157–58 (2014). An injury that is “concrete and
particularized” and “actual or imminent” satisfies the standing requirement. Id. at 158.
Plaintiffs have standing because they have suffered an injury in fact caused by the Book
Ban that can be redressed by issuing a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have been injured by the
Book Ban because at least one school district, Katy ISD, ceased all library book purchases,
including from Plaintiffs, after the Book Ban’s passage. 15 Because Plaintiffs have lost business
that, but-for the Book Ban, they would have received from Katy ISD, they have already suffered
“actual” injury. Standing is sufficient on that basis alone. Id.
Plaintiffs also have standing because further injury is “imminent.” Id. When the Book Ban
takes effect on September 1, 2023, Plaintiffs will be required to rate all books previously sold to a
public school as “sexually explicit material” or “sexually relevant material.” TEX. EDUC. CODE §
35.002. But Plaintiffs cannot issue the ratings because, among other reasons, they do not have lists
of all library materials sold to or in “active use” by public schools. Thus, because they cannot issue
15
See Claire Goodman, Katy ISD halts all library book purchases, new books stored, HOUSTON
CHRONICLE (June 27, 2023); Koehler Decl. ¶ 24.

the ratings as required, Plaintiffs will be prohibited from selling any books to public schools, which
will cause them economic and reputational damages. § 35.002(a); see Rejsek Decl. ¶ ; 22; Koehler
Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Grogan Decl. ¶ 5; Stratton Decl. ¶ 5; Rasenberger Decl. ¶ 11;. Trexler Decl. ¶ 12.
Plaintiffs will suffer further injury because the State will seek to compel their speech by
requiring them to rate books based on the State’s subjective criteria with which they disagree. See
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 143 S. Ct. 2298, 2308 (2023) (standing is demonstrated in a compelled
speech case by showing that a “credible threat” exists that the State will “seek to compel speech”
from a speaker which the speaker “d[oes] not wish to produce”); Rejsek Decl. ¶¶ 19, 21; Koehler
Decl. ¶ 17; Grogan Decl. ¶ 15; Stratton Decl. ¶ 14; Trexler Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16.
B. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving that the Book Ban is unconstitutional.
1. The Book Ban compels speech in violation of the First Amendment because it
requires Plaintiffs to express the government’s views.
The Book Ban compels Plaintiffs to speak in ways in which they disagree, forcing them to
adopt the State’s preferred message or face sanctions—a fundamental and flagrant violation of the
U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against compelled speech.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high
or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or
other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). “Just as the First Amendment may
prevent the government from prohibiting speech, the Amendment may prevent the government
from compelling individuals to express certain views.” U.S. v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405,
410 (2001).
The Book Ban directly conflicts with settled constitutional jurisprudence by compelling
Plaintiffs’ speech in at least two ways. First, the Book Ban coerces Plaintiffs to express that a book
is “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” based on the government’s standards with which they

disagree. Worse, the Book Ban requires Plaintiffs to revise their own independent assessments to
conform with the State’s views. This violates the principle that “the government may not compel
a person to speak its own preferred messages.” 303 Creative LLC, 143 S. Ct. at 2312. 16 Earlier this
year, in 303 Creative, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Colorado law that sought “to force
an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of
major significance.” Id. at 2321. By forcing a person to “utter what is not in [her] mind,” the State
attempted “something the First Amendment does not tolerate.” Id. at 2318.
The Book Ban is equally unconstitutional here, where the State seeks to force booksellers
to adopt its preferred message. Booksellers must first “develop and submit” to the State a list of
books rated as “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” that have ever been sold to a public school
based on criteria developed by the government with which they disagree. TEX. EDUC. CODE §
35.002(c); Rejsek Decl. ¶¶ 19, 21; Koehler Decl. ¶ 17; Grogan Decl. ¶ 15; Stratton Decl. ¶ 14.
Booksellers that fail to issue ratings are prohibited from selling any books to public schools. §
35.002(a). The government may then review the booksellers’ ratings and overrule them for any
book that it believes was “incorrectly rated.” § 35.003(a). If a bookseller fails to adopt the
government’s imposed rating, public schools will be banned from purchasing any books from it,
which will result in a significant financial injury. §§ 35.003(c), (d). The purchasing ban continues
indefinitely unless and until the bookseller caves to the government’s demands. The Book Ban’s
repressive speech regime—and the associated financial sanctions for noncompliance—are “more
than enough [] to represent an impermissible abridgment of the First Amendment's right to speak
16
See also Knox v. Serv. Empl. Int’l Union, 567 U.S. 298, 309 (2012) (“government may not . . .
compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves”); Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic &
Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006) (“freedom of speech prohibits the government
from telling people what they must say”).

freely.” 303 Creative, 143 S. Ct. at 2313. 17
2. The Book Ban is unconstitutionally vague because its unclear and confusing
terms fail to provide explicit standards and would cause disparate results.
The Book Ban contains many unconstitutionally vague provisions. A law is
unconstitutionally vague when it (1) fails to provide a “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable
opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly” or (2) fails to provide
“explicit standards” for applying the law “to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory applications.”
Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533, 551 (5th Cir. 2008). Because the Book Ban
implicates constitutionally protected expression, it must provide heightened specificity and clarity
in its definitions and protections against arbitrary enforcement. Id. at 552 (a “more stringent
vagueness test” applies when a law “threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected
rights”). 18
The Book Ban is unconstitutionally vague in at least four ways. 19 First, the definitions of
“sexually explicit material” and “sexually relevant material” are inherently vague because they are
created out of whole cloth by the Legislature, are confusing, and have no basis in existing law.
TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 33.021, 35.001(3). While they purport to exempt material “related to the
curriculum required under Section 28.002(a)” of the Education Code, the Book Ban provides little,
if any, guidance on how to know what curriculum exists and what is “related to” such a curriculum.
Curricula vary from day-to-day, year-to-year, and district-to-district—and are consistently
17
See also Agency for Int’l Devel. v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l., 570 U.S. 205, 220 (2013)
(striking law requiring the adoption of the government’s views as a condition of federal funds,).
18
See also Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 573 (1974) (when a law is “capable of reaching
expression sheltered by the First Amendment, the [vagueness] doctrine demands a greater degree
of specificity than in other contexts.”).
19
See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 682 (1968) (Dallas ordinance that
created the “Motion Picture Classification Board” that rated films as “not suitable for young
persons” was unconstitutionally vague).

reevaluated. The definition of “sexually relevant material” is particularly vague because it refers
to Tex. Penal Code § 43.21, which defines “obscene” consistent with Miller, 413 U.S. at 24. But
the Book Ban cherry-picks the definition of “patently offensive” from that test, noticeably
excluding the third prong of the Miller test—whether the material “taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.” The State’s standard thus fails to pass
constitutional muster and would be difficult for a person of ordinary intelligence to apply, resulting
in arbitrary applications. 20
Second, the convoluted “contextual analysis” required to determine whether a book is
“sexually explicit” adds to the confusion. TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.0021. To conduct a “contextual
analysis,” the Book Ban requires the consideration of three vague factors not found elsewhere in
law: (1) the explicitness or graphic nature of a description or depiction of sexual conduct contained
in the material; (2) whether the material consists predominantly of or contains multiple repetitions
of depictions [but not descriptions or portrayals] of sexual or excretory organs or activities; (3) and
whether a reasonable person would find that the material intentionally panders to, titillates, or
shocks the reader.” §§ 35.0021(b)(1)-(3). Although the Book Ban emphasizes that the analysis
should be “contextual,” it seemingly contradicts itself by requiring that “each instance of a
description, depiction, or portrayal of sexual conduct” be considered and that “contextual
determinations are necessarily highly fact-specific.” §§ 35.0021(c), (d). This results in a highly
personal and subjective test, which will yield widely disparate ratings—even for the same book—
as dozens of booksellers attempt to categorize thousands of books. See Rejsek Decl. ¶ 17; Koehler
Decl. ¶ 18; Grogan Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12, 13, 17; Stratton Decl. ¶ 11; Rasenberger Decl. ¶¶ 7-11.
20
The Ban requires booksellers to make subjective assessments based on unclear criteria
untethered to the defined bounds of the Miller test. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 873–74 (the
third prong of the Miller test “critically limits the uncertain sweep of the obscenity definition”).

Third, the Book Ban requires booksellers to “recall” books deemed sexually explicit if they
are still “in active use.” § 35.002(b). But the Book Ban provides no definition as to what constitutes
a “recall” or “active use,” 21 and fails to explain what happens if a school district fails to heed this
recall. These definitions (or lack thereof) are not incidental to the Book Ban, since a bookseller’s
ability to contract with school districts is premised on compliance with these vague terms. Finally,
the Book Ban is unclear regarding whether books can be sold by booksellers between September
1, 2023 (the Book Ban’s effective date) and April 1, 2024 (the date booksellers must submit their
ratings to the State). This could cause some districts to refuse to enter into contracts until ratings
are received. Because these imprecise statutory terms leave “grave uncertainty” about how to
understand their scope, they are void for vagueness. See Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591,
597, 602 (2015).
3. The Book Ban is an unconstitutional prior restraint because it prevents the

distribution of constitutionally protected works without judicial review.
The Book Ban vests the State with unbridled discretion, without judicial oversight, to
decide which books are available in public schools and which booksellers can conduct business
with public schools. The State ultimately determines which books are banned in public schools by
rating them as “sexually explicit,” even if they are constitutionally protected, based on its own
subjective criteria. Booksellers that do not adopt the State’s ratings are blocked from selling any
books to public schools, regardless of their rating. This results in an unconstitutional system of
prior restraints. 22 See Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 339 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2003) (“The
21
The Book Ban does not define “active use,” provide a means of determining whether a book is
in “active use,” or explain when it ceases to be in “active use.” “Active use” could presumedly
include books once but no longer sold. This requires booksellers to rate every book ever sold to
public schools, even if the book is not in their inventory or they do not intend to sell the book.
22
See also Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 503 (1952) (striking down a New York
law that “require[d] that permission to communicate ideas be obtained in advance from state
officials who judge the content of the words and pictures sought to be communicated . . . such a

prohibition of distributing literature is a classic form of a prior restraint.”).
Prior restraints, such as the Book Ban, “are the most serious and the least tolerable
infringement on First Amendment rights” and face a “heavy presumption against [their]
constitutional validity.” Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). In an analogous
case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Rhode Island law that established a Commission that
reviewed and rated certain books as “objectionable for sale, distribution or display to youths under
18 years of age.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 66 (1963). The Court found that
this scheme, in which distributors stopped selling the “suspect” publications in response, was an
unconstitutional “system of prior administrative restraints” because it (1) suppressed the
distribution of non-obscene, constitutionally protected books (2) without a judicial determination
that the content could lawfully be banned. Id. (“[A] State is not free to adopt whatever procedures
it pleases for dealing with obscenity without regard to the possible consequences for
constitutionally protected speech.”).
So too is the situation here. First, because the Book Ban does not consider whether books
have literary, artistic, political or scientific value, as required by the Miller/Ginsberg test, it sweeps
a wide swath of constitutionally protected works within its definition of “sexually explicit
material.” See Ginsberg v. State of N. Y., 390 U.S. 629 (1968), modified by Miller v. California,
413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). It also prevents booksellers from distributing constitutionally protected
books in the future based on unrelated past government determinations. See Universal Amusement
Co., Inc. v. Vance, 587 F.2d 159, 166 (5th Cir. 1978), aff'd, 445 U.S. 308 (1980) (“[E]njoin(ing)
the future operation of a (business) which disseminates presumptively First Amendment protected
previous restraint is a form of infringement upon freedom of expression to be especially

condemned”).

materials solely on the basis of the nature of the materials which were sold . . . in the past” “would
constitute an impermissible prior restraint.”)
Second, the Book Ban improperly provides no due process or ability to challenge the
State’s final determinations. Booksellers have no opportunity to challenge the State’s “corrected”
ratings or decision to ban them from selling books to public schools before the TEA, let alone a
judicial body. See Freedman v. State of Md., 380 U.S. 51, 58 (1965) (“[O]nly a procedure requiring
a judicial determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint.”); Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v.
McAuliffe, 610 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1980) (“There must be some judicial determination of obscenity
[b]efore a seizure or ‘constructive seizure’ may occur.”). 23 Publishers and authors are also left with
no recourse against the State. Without a judicial determination that the books can be lawfully
banned, the constitutionality of the statute is doomed.
4. The Book Ban is facially unconstitutional because it is a content-based

regulation not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.
The Book Ban is a content-based regulation of speech that is “presumptively
unconstitutional” because it “applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea
or message expressed.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (a content-based
regulation “‘on its face’ draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys”). The Book
Ban distinguishes between “sexually explicit material” and “sexually relevant material,” which are
subject to the law’s restrictions, and material that receives “no rating,” which is not restricted,
based on its content. 24 The Book Ban requires booksellers to review a book’s specific content,
such as “a written description, illustration, photographic image, video image, or audio file,” to
23
Again, a bookseller’s only (and insufficient) recourse is to agree to the government’s demand of
compelled speech.
24
The Book Book Ban also distinguishes between “material directly related to the curriculum,”
which is not subject to the law’s restrictions, and material not “directly related to the curriculum,”
which is subject to the law, based on their content. § 35.001(3).

determine whether it contains “communication, language, or material” that “describes, depicts, or
portrays sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25, Penal Code.” TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 33.21(a);
35.001(3). If so, the book must be rated as either “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” and
would be subject to the Book Ban. If the book also “describes, depicts, or portrays sexual conduct”
“in a way that is patently offensive, as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code,” it will be rated as
“sexually explicit” and will be banned entirely. § 33.21(a). Because the Book Ban applies to speech
depending on the “topic discussed or idea or message expressed,” it is a content-based regulation.
See Reed, 576 U.S. at 163.
The Book Ban cannot survive strict scrutiny because even if it serves a compelling
government interest, it is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest or the least restrictive means
of advancing that interest. Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 492 U.S. 115,
126 (1989). It is true that the government has an interest in protecting minors from materials that
are obscene and harmful. See Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 636–43. But the Book Ban goes beyond this
interest and broadly blocks the distribution of constitutionally protected works. See Erznoznik v.
City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213–14 (1975) (“Speech that is neither obscene as to youths
nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young
from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.”).
The Book Ban improperly creates a new category of unprotected speech—books deemed
“sexually explicit”—by defining it outside the bounds of obscenity. The State could have tracked
the definition of “sexually explicit material” with the definition of obscenity, but it purposefully
proscribed a broader category of prohibited speech not sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 33.21(a); 35.001(3); see Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786,
791 (2011) (although obscenity is within the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech”

that are not constitutionally protected, “new categories of unprotected speech may not be added to
the list by a legislature that concludes certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated.”); Reno v.
ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874-75 (1997) (“sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is
protected by the First Amendment”).
The Book Ban is also not narrowly tailored because the ratings do not vary based on the
age of the reader. 25 The Book Ban, instead, uses a one-size-fits-all model for rating books for all
K-12 students regardless of age or maturity. Under this overbroad policy, a high school senior may
not have access to a book about issues of significant concern, such as teen pregnancy, 26 because it
is deemed “sexually explicit” for a first grader. This creates a race-to-the-bottom where older
students are blocked from accessing books that may not only be age-appropriate for them but also
contribute to necessary discourse about matters of public concern facing their grade level.
Besides capturing constitutionally protected speech and failing to be narrowly tailored, the
Book Ban is not the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. The
Book Ban excessively burdens booksellers by requiring them to rate every book they have sold to
a public school as “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant,” if applicable, and provide those
ratings to the State, which will post them online. For Plaintiffs that likely have sold hundreds of
thousands of books to public schools over the decades, these burdens are onerous and extreme. See
Rejsek Decl. ¶ 16; Koehler Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, 12-16; Grogan Decl. ¶ 7; Stratton Decl. ¶¶ 8-11. Because
the Book Ban is neither narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest nor the
least restrictive means of advancing that interest, it fails strict scrutiny.
5. The Book Ban is unconstitutionally overbroad because it restricts and chills a
25
See Brown v. Entm't Merchants Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786, 812 (2011) (law that failed to distinguish
between ages of minors was not narrowly tailored).
26
See Danika Ellis, All 850 Books Texas Lawmaker Matt Krause Wants To Book Ban: An Analysis,
BOOK RIOT, November 5, 2021 (“About 5% of the books banned have to do with pregnancy.”).

substantial amount of protected speech.
The Book Ban is also constitutionally overbroad because it “prohibits a substantial amount
of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep.” United States v. Hansen, 143 S. Ct.
1932, 1939 (2023). The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the government from restricting even
unprotected speech where “a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the
process.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 237 (2002). When a statute, such as the
Book Ban, “sweeps so broadly, encompassing any number of constitutionally protected threats…it
is overbroad” and should be invalidated. Seals v. McBee, 898 F.3d 587, 597 (5th Cir. 2018).
While the Book Ban may legitimately prohibit some obscene material from school
libraries, any legitimate applications are outnumbered by the Book Ban’s sweeping prohibitions
of protected speech. The Book Ban’s capacious definitions of “sexually explicit” and “sexually
relevant” materials encompass not only books that may be constitutionally unprotected, but also a
vast amount of constitutionally protected books, including classic works of literature that no
reasonable person would find obscene. In this respect, the text of the Book Ban differs significantly
from the U.S. Supreme Court cases on which its definitions are purportedly based. See Free Speech
Coal., 535 U.S. at 256 (invalidating statute that went beyond unprotected categories recognized in
prior decisions). By severely limiting access to these works, the Book Ban also threatens to “deter
or chill constitutionally protected speech” and causes authors to self-censor themselves, by which
“society will lose their contributions to the marketplace of ideas.” Hansen, 143 S. Ct. at 1939.
The Court should also consider the effect on parties not presently before the Court. Id. at
1939 (“overbreadth doctrine allows a litigant … to vindicate the rights of the silenced, as well as
society's broader interest in hearing them speak”). Here, the Book Ban also threatens to impinge
on the constitutional right of students “to receive information and ideas” from their school library.

Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871 (1982). 27
6. The Book Ban unconstitutionally delegates government authority to regulate

speech to private entities and individuals.
The delegation of government authority to regulate speech to private entities or individuals,
such as the establishment of rating systems, is unconstitutional. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,
372 U.S. 58, 71 (1963) (delegation of government authority to Commission that rated books as
objectionable and prevented their circulation to minors was unconstitutional). Because the Book
Ban vests private “library material vendors” with the authority to rate and review books and
determine whether they are allowed or restricted in public schools, it violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex., 121 F.
Supp. 2d 530, 553 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (state delegation of the selection and removal of library books
to private citizens enjoined as an “improper delegation of governmental authority”).
C. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury because their constitutional rights will be
violated unless the Book Ban is enjoined.
Because, as explained above, the Book Ban violates Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights,
they will suffer irreparable injury unless the Book Ban is enjoined. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.
347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”); Opulent Life Church, 697 F.3d at 295 (“When an
alleged deprivation of a constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing
of irreparable injury is necessary.”).
In fact, Plaintiffs have already suffered irreparable injury because the Book Ban has caused
at least one school district to stop buying books from them. See § III.A, supra; Koehler Decl. ¶ 24.
27
See also Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943) (the First Amendment “embraces
the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it.”); Campbell v. St.
Tammany Par. Sch. Bd., 64 F.3d 184, 188 (5th Cir. 1995).

If the Book Ban takes effect, Plaintiffs’ injuries will continue to mount. Because Plaintiffs do not
maintain lists of all library materials sold to public schools, they will be unable to comply with the
Book Ban. See TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.002(b). Thus, Plaintiffs will be prohibited from selling
books to public schools, which will cause them economic damages. § 35.002(a).
D. The balance of equities and public interest weighs heavily in favor of enjoining the
Book Ban because the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and other Texans will be
infringed if a preliminary injunction is not granted.
The Court’s consideration of the balance of the equities and the public interest merge when,
as here, a preliminary injunction is filed against the government. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418,
435 (2009) (“The third and fourth factors, harm to the opposing party and the public interest, merge
when the Government is the opposing party.”). Both the balance of the equities and the public
interest favor enjoining the Book Ban because the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and others
will be infringed if a preliminary injunction is not granted. See Opulent Life, 697 F.3d at 298
(“Injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest.”).
By contrast, neither Defendants nor the public have a legitimate interest in the enforcement
of an unconstitutional law. See De Leon v. Perry, 975 F. Supp. 2d 632, 664 (W.D. Tex. 2014),
aff'd sub nom. De Leon v. Abbott, 791 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2015) (“There is no harm from issuing a
preliminary injunction that prevents the enforcement of a likely unconstitutional statute.”).
CONCLUSION
The Book Ban must be enjoined to avoid the compulsion of unwanted government speech,
the institution of a state-wide book licensing regime, and the recall, removal, and banning of many
constitutionally protected books in public schools. These unconstitutional consequences, coupled
with a plethora of undue practical and financial burdens placed on Plaintiffs (and others) to attempt
to comply with the Book Ban’s vague and overbroad requirements, offend First Amendment rights
at the core of our democracy. Plaintiffs thus respectfully request that the Motion be granted.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Laura Lee Prather

Laura Lee Prather
Texas Bar No. 16234200
laura.prather@haynesboone.com
Catherine L. Robb
catherine.robb@haynesboone.com
Michael J. Lambert
michael.lambert@haynesboone.com
Reid Pillifant
reid.pillifant@haynesboone.com
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 867-8400
Facsimile: (512) 867-8470
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the 25th day of July 2023, a true and correct copy of the
above document was served via the CM/ECF system to all counsel of record.
/s/ Laura Lee Prather

Laura Lee Prather

Case 1:23-cv-00858 Document 6-1 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT A
H.B.ANo.A900
1 AN ACT
2 relating to the regulation of library materials sold to or included
3 in public school libraries.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
5 SECTIONA1.AAThis Act shall be known as the Restricting
6 Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act.
7 SECTIONA2.AASection 33.021, Education Code, is amended to
8 read as follows:
9 Sec.A33.021.AALIBRARY STANDARDS. (a) In this section,
10 "sexually explicit material" means any communication, language, or
11 material, including a written description, illustration,
12 photographic image, video image, or audio file, other than library
13 material directly related to the curriculum required under Section
14 28.002(a), that describes, depicts, or portrays sexual conduct, as
15 defined by Section 43.25, Penal Code, in a way that is patently
16 offensive, as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code.
17 (b)AAThe Texas State Library and Archives Commission, in
18 consultation with the State Board of Education, shall adopt
19 voluntary standards for school library services, other than
20 collection development, that a[. A] school district shall consider
21 [the standards] in developing, implementing, or expanding library
22 services.
23 (c)AAThe Texas State Library and Archives Commission, with
24 approval by majority vote of the State Board of Education, shall
1
H.B.ANo.A900
1 adopt standards for school library collection development that a
2 school district shall adhere to in developing or implementing the
3 district ’s library collection development policies.
4 (d)AAThe standards adopted under Subsection (c) must:
5 (1)AAbe reviewed and updated at least once every five
6 years; and
7 (2)AAinclude a collection development policy that:
8 (A)AAprohibits the possession, acquisition, and
9 purchase of:
10 (i)AAharmful material, as defined by Section
11 43.24, Penal Code;
12 (ii)AAlibrary material rated sexually
13 explicit material by the selling library material vendor; or
14 (iii)AAlibrary material that is pervasively
15 vulgar or educationally unsuitable as referenced in Pico v. Board
16 of Education, 457 U.S. 853 (1982);
17 (B)AArecognizes that obscene content is not
18 protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
19 (C)AAis required for all library materials
20 available for use or display, including material contained in
21 school libraries, classroom libraries, and online catalogs;
22 (D)AArecognizes that parents are the primary
23 decision makers regarding a student ’s access to library material;
24 (E)AAencourages schools to provide library
25 catalog transparency;
26 (F)AArecommends schools communicate effectively
27 with parents regarding collection development; and
2
H.B.ANo.A900
1 (G)AAprohibits the removal of material based
2 solely on the:
3 (i)AAideas contained in the material; or
4 (ii)AApersonal background of:
5 (a)AAthe author of the material; or
6 (b)AAcharacters in the material.
7 SECTIONA3.AASubtitle F, Title 2, Education Code, is amended
8 by adding Chapter 35 to read as follows:
9 CHAPTER 35. REGULATION OF CERTAIN LIBRARY MATERIAL
10 Sec.A35.001.AADEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
11 (1)AA"Library material vendor" includes any entity that
12 sells library material to a public primary or secondary school in
13 this state.
14 (2)AA"Sexually explicit material" has the meaning
15 assigned by Section 33.021.
16 (3)AA"Sexually relevant material" means any
17 communication, language, or material, including a written
18 description, illustration, photographic image, video image, or
19 audio file, other than library material directly related to the
20 curriculum required under Section 28.002(a), that describes,
21 depicts, or portrays sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25,
22 Penal Code.
23 Sec.A35.002.AARATINGS REQUIRED. (a) A library material
24 vendor may not sell library materials to a school district or
25 open-enrollment charter school unless the vendor has issued
26 appropriate ratings regarding sexually explicit material and
27 sexually relevant material previously sold to a district or school.
3
H.B.ANo.A900
1 (b)AAA library material vendor may not sell library material
2 rated sexually explicit material and shall issue a recall for all
3 copies of library material sold to a district or school that is:
4 (1)AArated sexually explicit material; and
5 (2)AAin active use by the district or school.
6 (c)AANot later than April 1, 2024, each library material
7 vendor shall develop and submit to the agency a list of library
8 material rated as sexually explicit material or sexually relevant
9 material sold by the vendor to a school district or open-enrollment
10 charter school before that date and still in active use by the
11 district or school.
12 (d)AANot later than September 1 of each year, each library
13 material vendor shall submit to the agency an updated list of
14 library material rated as sexually explicit material or sexually
15 relevant material sold by the vendor to a school district or
16 open-enrollment charter school during the preceding year and still
17 in active use by the district or school.
18 (e)AAThe agency shall post each list submitted under
19 Subsection (c) or (d) in a conspicuous place on the agency ’s
20 Internet website as soon as practicable.
21 Sec.A35.0021.AARATING GUIDELINES. (a) For purposes of
22 determining whether a library material is sexually explicit as
23 required by Section 35.002, a library material vendor must perform
24 a contextual analysis of the material to determine whether the
25 material describes, depicts, or portrays sexual conduct in a way
26 that is patently offensive.
27 (b)AAIn performing the contextual analysis of a library
4
H.B.ANo.A900
1 material, a library material vendor must consider the following
2 three principal factors with respect to the material:
3 (1)AAthe explicitness or graphic nature of a
4 description or depiction of sexual conduct contained in the
5 material;
6 (2)AAwhether the material consists predominantly of or
7 contains multiple repetitions of depictions of sexual or excretory
8 organs or activities; and
9 (3)AAwhether a reasonable person would find that the
10 material intentionally panders to, titillates, or shocks the
11 reader.
12 (c)AAIn examining the three factors listed under Subsection
13 (b), a vendor must weigh and balance each factor and conclude
14 whether the library material is patently offensive, recognizing
15 that because each instance of a description, depiction, or
16 portrayal of sexual conduct contained in a material may present a
17 unique mix of factors.
18 (d)AATo determine whether a description, depiction, or
19 portrayal of sexual conduct contained in a material is patently
20 offensive, a library material vendor must consider the full context
21 in which the description, depiction, or portrayal of sexual conduct
22 appears, to the extent possible, recognizing that contextual
23 determinations are necessarily highly fact-specific and require
24 the consideration of contextual characteristics that may
25 exacerbate or mitigate the offensiveness of the material.
26 Sec.A35.003.AAAGENCY REVIEW. (a) The agency may review
27 library material sold by a library material vendor that is not rated
5
H.B.ANo.A900
1 or incorrectly rated by the vendor as sexually explicit material,
2 sexually relevant material, or no rating in accordance with Section
3 35.002(a). If the agency determines that the library material is
4 required to be rated as sexually explicit material or sexually
5 relevant material or to receive no rating at all under that
6 subsection, the agency shall provide written notice to the vendor.
7 The notice must include information regarding the vendor ’s duty
8 under this section and provide the corrected rating required for
9 the library material.
10 (b)AANot later than the 60th day after the date on which a
11 library material vendor receives notice regarding library material
12 under Subsection (a), the vendor shall:
13 (1)AArate the library material according to the
14 agency ’s corrected rating; and
15 (2)AAnotify the agency of the action taken under
16 Subdivision (1).
17 (c)AAThe agency shall post and maintain in a conspicuous
18 place on the agency ’s Internet website a list of library material
19 vendors who fail to comply with Subsection (b).
20 (d)AAA school district or open-enrollment charter school may
21 not purchase library material from a library material vendor on the
22 list described by Subsection (c).
23 (e)AAA library material vendor placed on the list described
24 by Subsection (c) may petition the agency for removal from the list.
25 The agency may remove a vendor from the list only if the agency is
26 satisfied that the vendor has taken appropriate action under
27 Subsection (b).
6
H.B.ANo.A900
1 Sec.A35.004.AALIABILITY. A school district or
2 open-enrollment charter school or a teacher, librarian, or other
3 staff member employed by a district or school is not liable for any
4 claim or damage resulting from a library material vendor ’s
5 violation of this chapter.
6 Sec.A35.005.AAPARENTAL CONSENT REQUIRED FOR USE OF CERTAIN
7 LIBRARY MATERIALS. A school district or open-enrollment charter
8 school may not allow a student enrolled in the district or school to
9 reserve, check out, or otherwise use outside the school library
10 library material the library material vendor has rated as sexually
11 relevant material under Section 35.002(a) unless the district or
12 school first obtains written consent from the student ’s parent or
13 person standing in parental relation.
14 Sec.A35.006.AAREVIEW AND REPORTING OF CERTAIN LIBRARY
15 MATERIALS. (a) Not later than January 1 of every odd-numbered
16 year, each school district and open-enrollment charter school
17 shall:
18 (1)AAreview the content of each library material in the
19 catalog of a district or school library that is rated as sexually
20 relevant material under Section 35.002(a) by the library material
21 vendor;
22 (2)AAdetermine in accordance with the district ’s or
23 school ’s policies regarding the approval, review, and
24 reconsideration of school library materials whether to retain each
25 library material reviewed under Subdivision (1) in the school
26 library catalog; and
27 (3)AAeither:
7
H.B.ANo.A900
1 (A)AApost in a conspicuous place on the Internet
2 website maintained by the district or school a report; or
3 (B)AAprovide physical copies of the report at the
4 central administrative building for the district or school.
5 (b)AAThe report required under Subsection (a)(3) must
6 include:
7 (1)AAthe title of each library material reviewed under
8 Subsection (a)(1);
9 (2)AAthe district ’s or school ’s decision regarding the
10 library material under Subsection (a)(2); and
11 (3)AAthe school or campus where the library material is
12 currently located.
13 Sec.A35.007.AARULES. The commissioner may adopt rules as
14 necessary to administer this chapter.
15 Sec.A35.008.AAASSISTANCE OF AGENCY. The agency may provide
16 assistance to school districts and open-enrollment charter schools
17 in complying with this chapter.
18 SECTIONA4.AANot later than January 1, 2024, the Texas State
19 Library and Archives Commission shall adopt the standards for
20 school library collection development as required under Section
21 33.021(c), Education Code, as added by this Act.
22 SECTIONA5.AA(a) Not later than April 1, 2024, each library
23 material vendor, as defined by Section 35.001, Education Code, as
24 added by this Act, shall submit the initial list required under
25 Section 35.002(c), Education Code, as added by this Act.
26 (b)AANot later than September 1, 2024, each library material
27 vendor, as defined by Section 35.001, Education Code, as added by
8
H.B.ANo.A900
1 this Act, shall submit the initial updated list required under
2 Section 35.002(d), Education Code, as added by this Act.
3 (c)AANot later than January 1, 2025, each school district and
4 open-enrollment charter school shall conduct the initial content
5 review and submit the initial report required under Section
6 35.006(a), Education Code, as added by this Act.
7 SECTIONA6.AAThe changes in law made by this Act to the
8 Education Code apply beginning with the 2023-2024 school year.
9 SECTIONA7.AAThis Act takes effect immediately if it receives
10 a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
11 provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
12 Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
13 Act takes effect September 1, 2023.
9
H.B.ANo.A900
______________________________ ______________________________
AAAAPresident of the Senate Speaker of the HouseAAAAAA
I certify that H.B. No. 900 was passed by the House on April
20, 2023, by the following vote:AAYeas 95, Nays 52, 1 present, not
voting.
______________________________
Chief Clerk of the HouseAAA
I certify that H.B. No. 900 was passed by the Senate on May
23, 2023, by the following vote:AAYeas 19, Nays 12.
______________________________
Secretary of the SenateAAAA
APPROVED:AA_____________________
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADateAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAA_____________________
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGovernorAAAAAAA
10
EXHIBIT B

AUSTIN DIVISION
BOOK PEOPLE, INC., VBK d/b/a BLUE §

WILLOW BOOKSHOP, AMERICAN §
BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, §
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN §
PUBLISHERS, INC., AUTHORS §
DEFENSE FUND, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § CASE NO.
§
Education, §
§
Defendants. §
DECLARATION OF MARY E. RASENBERGER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Mary E. Rasenberger declares:
1. My name is Mary E. Rasenberger. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am
fully competent to testify about the matters contained herein. The following statements are made
within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
2. I am the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Authors Guild, Inc. (“Authors
Guild” or “Guild”). I have held this position since 2014, when I joined the Guild (with a title
change from Executive Director to CEO in 2020).
3. Authors Guild was founded in 1912 and is a national non-profit association of more
than 13,000 professional, published writers of all genres, 483 of whom are located in Texas. It
DECLARATION OF MARY E. RASENBERGER

1
submitted an amicus curiae brief before the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach In re: A Court of Mist
and Fury and In re: Gender Queer, a Memoir, in which a petitioner asked the court to find these
two books obscene for unrestricted viewing by minors; the Court denied that request. It is currently
a plaintiff before the Western District of Arkansas in Fayetteville Public Library et al. v. Crawford
County Arkansas et al., asking the court to declare portions of an Arkansas law unconstitutional
for violating plaintiffs’ rights to disseminate, receive, and read constitutionally protected books
and other media.
4. The Guild counts historians, biographers, academicians, novelists, journalists, and
other writers of non-fiction and fiction as members; many write for children or young adults, and
are frequent contributors to the most influential and well-respected publications in every field. The
Guild works to promote the rights and professional interest of authors in various areas, including
copyright, freedom of expression, antitrust, fair contracts and artificial intelligence. Many Guild
members earn a substantial portion of their livelihoods through their writing, and the ability to
write freely and distribute their work is vital to their incomes, as well as to the culture.
5. The ability of Guild members to write on topics of their choosing and to have their
work available through bookstores and libraries is vital to their ability to make a living in their
chosen profession. Schools are a vital market for many Guild members, especially for children’s,
young adult, and crossover writers.
6. Guild members and their works are subject to House Bill 900 (the “Book Ban”).
7. The rating system imposed by the Book Ban will effectively ban many
educationally valuable books written by our members from schools. Books marked “sexually
explicit” are expressly banned, even for students who are 18 and older, and books marked as
“sexually relevant” are effectively banned, as they are highly unlikely to be included in official
DECLARATION OF MARY E. RASENBERGER 2

curricula due to the difficulty of librarians getting written consent from parents to allow the books
to circulate. This includes books where there is any reference to the sex of a person, anything
related to people’s sexuality, biology related to human or animal sexuality. Given the overbreadth,
vagueness, and ambiguity of the law, book sellers will have to err far on the side of being over-
inclusive in rating books as either “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant”. Many authors’ books
will undoubtedly be effectively banned in the significant Texas school market even when there is
nothing remotely obscene or sexualized in them. As a result, our members will lose the entire
Texas school market, which will adversely impact their incomes. Because many publishers and
books sellers cannot practically sell different books to different markets, authors will lose school
market throughout the country – which many children’s, young adult, and literary classics authors
rely upon.
8. The law also ignores the literary artistic, political, or scientific value of the work as
a whole. The definitions in the Book Ban allow the State to cherry-pick terms and passages to
justify removing books. Rating a book as either “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” will
create the false impression that the book is obscene or pornographic. This stands to
disproportionately apply to books that include LGBTQ+ or sexually active characters, which are
often accused of containing obscenity even when they do not. As a result, the Book Ban would bar
books from schools based on the political attitude that discussions of sexuality (especially
LGBTQ+ sexuality) are “patently offensive” by their very nature.
9. Under the Book Ban, authors do not have any involvement in the rating process.
This greatly increases the odds that their work will be mischaracterized by individuals determined
to remove books based upon viewpoint discrimination. There is no recourse under the Book Ban
for an author to protest a rating or attempt to provide context for the passages in question.

10. The Book Ban will lead to self-censorship among both authors and publishers, so
that they can retain the school markets and avoid being offensively labelled. We have already seen
this occur in other states such as Florida, where textbook publishers attempted to eliminate race
from a discussion about Rosa Parks.
11. Given the influence of the Texas book market, this vague and ambiguous rating
system could result in publishers not daring to publish some books out of fear that they would
violate the Book Ban, which could devastate authors’ incomes and careers.
12. The lack of guidance in the Book Ban makes it effectively impossible for authors
to know how to meet its standards in their future works. Of the twenty books by Jodi Picoult that
were banned in Florida, half of them didn’t even have a kiss in them. The only surefire way to
avoid a damaging rating under the Book Ban is to eliminate any reference to sex or sexuality
altogether, which is impossible for most works about humans and biology, since most humans and
animals have a sex (i.e., are male or female) and have children through sex. Further, because the
Book Ban makes no distinction as to age, the censorship will cause authors who wish to sell to
schools to avoid writing stories or books that address important issues that many teenagers
experience in their lives or communities, including important topics like family, love, preventing
or dealing with pregnancy. Like teachers, authors of books written for children and young adults
know their audience – they are highly educated and deeply invested in understanding and speaking
to the age group they are addressing. The Book Ban will censor authors’ speech at the cost of the
children’s and teenagers’ comprehension of their world, including some who are of or close to
voting age. It is an attack on democracy itself.
13. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the above is true and correct.

Executed this 24th day of July, 2023.
/s/ Mary E. Rasenberger____________

Mary E. Rasenberger

EXHIBIT C

AUSTIN DIVISION

DEFENSE FUND, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § CASE NO.
§
Education, §
§
Defendants. §
DECLARATION OF VALERIE KOEHLER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Valerie Koehler declares:
1. My name is Valerie Koehler. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am fully
competent to testify about the matters contained herein. The following statements are made within
my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
2. I am the owner of VBK, Inc. d/b/a Blue Willow Bookshop, an independent
bookstore in Houston, Texas (“Blue Willow”). I have been the owner of Blue Willow since 1996.
3. Blue Willow sells books and other library materials for school use in response to
RFPs and RFQs from schools, to librarians and teachers who are reimbursed, and as a result of
arranging for author visits at schools.
DECLARATION OF VALERIE KOEHLER 1

4. In addition to school visits, Blue Willow Bookshop arranges three large festivals
for young readers every year, each with a goal of promoting literacy and fostering lifelong readers:
TeenCon, Tweens Read, and Bookworm. During those festivals, schools and teachers purchase
books for students and classrooms.
5. Blue Willow is an authorized vendor to many school districts and has sold books
to at least 22 Texas school districts in the last 15 years.
6. Although Blue Willow intends to comply with House Bill 900 (the “Book Ban”) to
the best of its ability, I do not know how we will be able to do so.
7. Blue Willow has no complete record of books and library materials sold for school
use since 1996. Blue Willow has not attempted to keep complete records of every sale, and Blue
Willow has migrated its records among various record-keeping systems, which has resulted in the
loss of some records.
8. As a result, Blue Willow is not able to comply with the Book Ban, which requires
Blue Willow to identify and rate every book it has ever sold to a public school district—even books
it may no longer sell or that are out of circulation.
9. Blue Willow also has no way of knowing which books are in “active use.” Blue
Willow does not ask its customers how its books will be used, and Blue Willow does not have any
information as to where books it has sold are housed within a school district or school—whether
they are used in conjunction with a school’s curriculum, used in the classroom, used in a library,
given or loaned to students, or whether these books are still within the district’s possession.
10. Even if Blue Willow had these records, it would be impossible for Blue Willow to
devote the financial resources necessary to comply with the Book Ban’s rating requirements.

11. Blue Willow estimates it has sold between 20,000 and 50,000 different titles to
Texas schools or school districts in its 26 years of business.
12. Many of the books that Blue Willow has previously sold would no longer be in our
current inventory. The Book Ban requires us to review and rate these books—which are not in our
possession—regardless of whether we plan to sell them in the future. These are books that Blue
Willow was well within its rights to sell at the time. The Book Ban now forces us to—decades
after the fact—obtain and review these books.
13. Based on the Book Ban’s highly fact-specific criteria, Blue Willow does not believe
that its staff would be capable of producing accurate ratings and believes such a review would
require employing legal professionals.
14. To read and rate a book according to the Book Ban’s multi-layered criteria, Blue
Willow estimates that it would cost between $200 and $1,000 per book.
15. Blue Willow estimates the total cost to read and rate books already sold would be
between $4 million and $500 million dollars. This estimate does not account for the cost of
reviewing future book sales or the cost of obtaining previously sold books.
16. Blue Willow does not have the financial resources to comply with the Book Ban.
Blue Willow’s annual sales are just over $1 million per year.
17. Blue Willow does not want to be compelled by the State to issue ratings for books
based on criteria with which it does not agree. Blue Willow sells a wide variety of books, including
books that I would not personally be interested in reading. However, we do not judge our
customer’s choices. We would not want our customers to think the ratings reflect our views of
these books.

18. The standards for rating books that are contained in the Book Ban are confusing
and vague. I have discussed this issue with my staff, and we do not know how we could rate books
based on the Book Ban’s criteria, since the criteria are inherently subjective, and what might be
offensive to one person would not be to another. For instance, is a book that contains kissing
acceptable under the Ban? Is kissing between the same sex acceptable? This is just one small
example of the confusion our staff would face.
19. Blue Willow is also confused as to which books are exempt from ratings as part of
the required curriculum. Blue Willow does not know, and has no realistic way of ascertaining, the
curriculum for each school, grade level and classroom in each of the Texas districts to which we
sell books.
20. If Blue Willow does rate these books, our ratings can still be overridden by the State
and then publicly posted as if they represent our own speech. Blue Willow would not want
customers to believe these ratings reflect our views of these books. But if Blue Willow resists
adopting the State’s ratings, then the State will prevent us from selling any books to public schools,
and we will be identified on the State’s public blacklist, which would cause both financial and
reputational damage to our company.
21. I am also concerned that the public posting of any ratings by Blue Willow would
lead to stigma and reputational harm for our company. If Blue Willow does participate in this
system of compelled speech, we stand to lose customers who disagree with the Book Ban.
22. Blue Willow also does not wish to participate in a forced recall of books based on
ratings with which we do not agree. I am concerned that the issuance of recall requests from Blue
Willow to school districts would be interpreted as our own speech, when, in fact, it is being
compelled by the State.

23. Approximately 20 percent of Blue Willow’s sales are directly to schools or are
related to school author visits and our three festivals. Blue Willow would lose the vast majority of
this revenue if schools were no longer able to purchase from Blue Willow.
24. Blue Willow has already lost sales as a result of the Book Ban. Blue Willow has
sold over $200,000 in books to Katy Independent School District in the past 5-7 years, but Katy
ISD has now paused its purchasing in response to the uncertainty surrounding the Book Ban.
25. Blue Willow anticipates that it will continue to lose sales at a rapid rate because of
the Book Ban.
26. Blue Willow does not have clarity as to whether it can continue selling books to
Texas public school districts between the law’s effective date (September 1, 2023) and the date
that its ratings are due to be submitted (April 1, 2024).
27. Blue Willow intends to continue selling books and other library materials to Texas
school districts for use in school libraries in the future.
Executed this 21st day of July, 2023.
/s/ Valerie Koehler

Valerie Koehler

EXHIBIT D

AUSTIN DIVISION

DEFENSE FUND, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § CASE NO.
§
Education, §
§
Defendants. §
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW STRATTON
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Matthew Stratton declares:
1. My name is Matthew Stratton. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am fully
2. I am the Deputy General Counsel of the Association of American Publishers
(“AAP”).
3. The Association of American Publishers (“AAP”) is a not-for-profit organization
that represents the leading book, journal, and education publishers in the United States on matters
of law and policy, advocating for outcomes that incentivize the publication of creative expression,
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW STRATTON 1

professional content, and learning solutions. AAP’s membership includes approximately 130
individual members, who range from major commercial book and journal publishers to small, non-
profit, university, and scholarly presses, as well as leading publishers of educational materials and
digital learning platforms. AAP’s members publish a substantial portion of the general,
educational, and religious books produced in the United States in print and digital formats,
including critically acclaimed, award-winning literature for adults, young adults, and children.
AAP represents an industry that not only depends upon the free exercise of rights guaranteed by
the First Amendment, but also exists in service to our Constitutional democracy, including the
unequivocal freedoms to publish, read, and inform oneself.
4. The AAP has a number of members that do business in Texas who are vendors to
school districts subject to House Bill 900 (the “Book Ban”). AAP also has many more members
that publish titles that are distributed to Texas schools through third-party vendors subject to the
Book Ban. As the latter category of AAP members will also have their books rated, they will
experience the same harms discussed in paragraphs 12-16.
5. A number of AAP’s members have only a partial set of records of past sales to
Texas public schools or school districts. The records are limited because, among other reasons: (i)
AAP members may sell books to Texas public schools or school districts without being aware of
it; and (ii) AAP members may have document-retention policies under which records that are no
longer needed are destroyed and/or not reasonably accessible. As a result, these AAP members are
unable to comply with the Book Ban.
6. Even if AAP’s members did possess these records, AAP’s members have no way
to know which books are in active use (or even what “active use” means), so it is impossible for

AAP members to undertake the task of rating and recalling (if applicable) these materials, absent
receiving information from the schools.
7. Furthermore, schools may purchase the same books from multiple vendors so it
may not be feasible to determine whether the copies of books sold by AAP members are those that
remain in active use. With multiple vendors for the same book, the likelihood of consistent ratings
is slim.
8. The rating system imposed by the Book Ban would be a burden on AAP’s members,
requiring significant time and expense to identify past sales and compare those to books in “active
use.” Some of AAP’s members have sold tens of thousands of books to Texas schools and school
districts, and it is estimated that hundreds of hours of work or even more would be required by
each of these members to attempt to search sales records and compare them against lists of books
in active use (assuming such lists were provided to AAP’s member), as required by the Book Ban.
It would be an enormous burden in terms of resources, staff, and costs, and would require
significantly diverting existing staff or hiring new staff.
9. Likewise, applying ratings would be a significant burden on AAP’s members.
There are millions of books in Texas school libraries. Our members do not have existing staff or
an existing process for the purpose of applying the ratings. It would be cost-prohibitive, difficult
and time-consuming to hire and train new staff (or re-train existing staff) to apply ratings, given
the vague and confusing process outlined by the Book Ban.
10. The amount of time per book (e.g., a 450-page work of fiction or non-fiction in a
high school library would take significantly longer to review than a picture book in an elementary
school library), but broadly speaking the time to read, analyze, and possibly solicit other
viewpoints could require a substantial, double-digit number of hours per book on average.

11. AAP members will have difficulty applying the rating standards set forth in the
Book Ban for at least the following reasons:
a. It is unclear what it means for library material to be “directly related” to
the required curriculum (and therefore exempt from the ratings).
Oftentimes AAP members do not even get copies of the curriculum.
b. It is unclear how a vendor would know if library material is being used in a
way that is directly related to the required curriculum.
c. It is unclear what “active use” means.
d. It is unclear how a vendor will know if a library material remains in “active
use.”
e. The “sexually relevant” rating is vague and confusing insofar as any de
minimis, non-explicit reference, in any context, to sexual relations, could
result in the rating. It could apply broadly to health-related works, religious
texts, historical works, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and many other works.
f. The “sexually explicit” rating is vague and confusing because the contextual
analysis does not adjust for differences in ages or communities and does not
provide for consideration of the work as a whole.
g. Vendors may not have any knowledge about the contemporary community
standards of decency nor do they know which community’s standards
should be considered
h. The balancing test is entirely subjective and cannot be applied with any
consistency.

12. The ratings will stigmatize books that are rated “sexually explicit” or “sexually
relevant” and will risk reducing sales of these works—not just to Texas schools, but globally, since
the ratings are posted online. This, in turn, risks publishers foregoing investment in important new
works.
13. The ratings could also reduce royalties to authors, and therefore reduce the
incentive for authors to produce new works or expose those who issue ratings to potential liability
for doing so.
14. The ratings will also chill members’ and their authors’ constitutionally protected
speech. The ratings compel our members to adopt a highly subjective opinion that they patently
disagree with or suffer a significant financial penalty. If members refuse to adopt the State’s speech
as their own, then they lose all business with Texas public school districts.
15. By refusing to rate books, or by being placed on the State’s blacklist, the universe
of vendors and titles would contract. A member would be forced to weigh the prejudice to sales
and distribution globally against the prospect of losing the school market in Texas. Many members
would consider no longer selling books to Texas schools. The impact of the State licensing regime
could extend beyond the State’s borders. Other localities or states may rely on the ratings, either
informally or formally. In addition, other states may decide to adopt their own ratings
requirements, which could lead to a patchwork of inconsistent rating regimes and likely result in
vendors adopting the most restrictive ratings for all states.
16. Members have reported that there are schools that are stopping or delaying buying
books. This trend may escalate in August, when fall back-to-school buying ordinarily starts. The
confusion is expected to be detrimental to our members’ sales.

17. With less than 45 days until the law takes effect, our members remain confused
about their responsibilities under the Book Ban, including (but not limited to) the following
unanswered questions:
a. What is the definition of a “recall”? Is a refund required if a vendor is
required to recall material?
b. How does a vendor communicate a library material rating to a school? On
the library material? In marketing material? On a pro forma invoice? A list?
Other?
c. What happens if different vendors adopt different ratings for identical titles?
d. What happens if a vendor no longer sells a book that is still in “active use”
by a district? Is it then compelled to re-purchase the book and rate it?
e. May vendors sell library material to a school prior to submission of the list
with ratings for prior sales (on or before April 1, 2024), and if so, must that
library material be rated?
f. If after being added to the banned vendor list, a vendor changes its ratings
as instructed by the TEA, does the TEA have discretion to refuse removal
from the banned vendor list?
Executed this 21st day of July, 2023.
/s/ Matthew Stratton

Matthew Stratton

EXHIBIT E

AUSTIN DIVISION

DEFENSE FUND, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § CASE NO.
§
Education, §
§
Defendants. §
DECLARATION OF CHARLEY REJSEK
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Charley Rejsek declares:
1. My name is Charley Rejsek. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am fully
2. I am the CEO of Book People, Inc., (“BookPeople”) an independent bookstore that
sells new books in Austin, Texas. I have been the CEO of BookPeople since 2022 and previously
served as the company’s general manager.
3. BookPeople was founded in 1970 as Grok Books. Since its founding, BookPeople
has sold books and other library materials to Texas school districts for use in their school libraries.
DECLARATION OF CHARLEY REJSEK 1

4. BookPeople is an authorized vendor to many school districts.
5. BookPeople sells books and other library materials to schools and teachers for
school use in response to RFQs from school contacts, in response to online orders, in the bookstore,
and at offsite events, festivals, school events, bookfairs, and conferences.
6. Book People is the official bookseller for the Texas Book Festival co-founded by
former First Lady Laura Bush.
7. BookPeople intends to continue selling books and other library materials to Texas
school districts for use in school libraries in the future.
8. BookPeople is not able to comply with H.B. 900 (the “Book Ban”), which requires
BookPeople to identify and rate every book it has ever sold to a public school district that is “still
in active use.”
9. BookPeople does not have complete records detailing all products sold to schools
during its 53 years in business, so it cannot identify all books previously sold to school districts,
as the Book Ban requires.
10. BookPeople has changed record-keeping and inventory systems several times in its
53-year history and records from previous decades have largely been lost. BookPeople did not
expect that it would someday need to access these decades-old records in order to comply with a
government mandate.
11. Because BookPeople does not have records of all sales during its existence, it also
has no way of knowing which books sold by BookPeople are still “in active use” by a school
district. BookPeople does not have any way of ascertaining this information. BookPeople does not
have records of every school district to which it has sold books.

12. BookPeople does not ask its customers to specify how the books they are
purchasing will be used.
13. Even if BookPeople had records of its sales, BookPeople would be unable to
comply with the Book Ban’s rating requirements.
14. Many of the books that BookPeople has previously sold would no longer be in our
current inventory. The Book Ban requires us to review and rate these books—which are not in our
possession—regardless of whether we plan to sell them in the future. These are books that
BookPeople was well within its rights to sell at the time. The Book Ban now forces us to—decades
after the fact—obtain and review these books.
15. BookPeople is a fixed-price bookseller; the vast majority of our books arrive with
the price already printed on the book. As a result, BookPeople operates with very narrow profit
margins.
16. The financial resources that would be required to have BookPeople’s staff identify,
read and rate every book that BookPeople sells—or has ever sold—to school districts, as the Book
Ban requires, would be financially unsustainable. As CEO, I do not see any way for BookPeople
to comply with the Book Ban and remain in business.
17. Even if BookPeople did have the resources to comply with the Book Ban, our staff
would not know how to rate books based on the subjective nature of the Book Ban’s rating
requirements. For instance, the Book Ban requires BookPeople to assess books based on “current
community standards,” but which community? BookPeople is based in Austin, Texas, but serves
many communities throughout the State, each of which has its own community character. Our
ratings would necessarily differ from vendors who serve other communities.

18. Our ratings would also consider the age-appropriateness of a given work. However,
the Book Ban does not specify what age group we should consider in reviewing the works. This
alone makes it impossible to apply an accurate rating.
19. Even if BookPeople could rate these materials according to the State’s criteria,
BookPeople does not believe it should be compelled to provide these ratings, based on criteria in
which it does not agree, in order to sell books to public schools.
20. If BookPeople does rate these books, our ratings can still be overridden by the State
and then publicly posted as if they represent our own speech. BookPeople would not want
customers to believe these ratings reflect its views on the books. But if BookPeople resists adopting
the State’s ratings, then we will be identified on the State’s public blacklist, which would cause
reputational damage to the company.
21. I am also concerned that the public posting of any ratings by BookPeople would
lead to stigma and reputational harm for BookPeople. If BookPeople does participate in this system
of compelled speech, we stand to lose customers who disagree with the Book Ban.
22. The Book Ban also states that if we do not comply with the State’s ratings, the State
will prevent us from selling any books to public schools. This will cause direct financial harm.
23. The law does not specify how long BookPeople would be banned if it runs afoul of
the State’s rating regime, so BookPeople cannot fully assess whether to comply. Nor does the law
explain how the State will handle ratings that differ among vendors—an inevitable outcome when
numerous vendors are being asked to review thousands of works.
24. BookPeople does not have clarity as to whether it can continue selling books to
Texas public school districts between the law’s effective date (September 1, 2023) and the date
that its ratings are due to be submitted (April 1, 2024).

25. BookPeople is a community bookstore and we want to continue supporting all
schools in our area. By imposing an unfunded mandate to review and rate every book that we have
ever sold to a public school, the State of Texas will force BookPeople to discontinue its work with
local public schools, in violation of its First Amendment rights.
26. If BookPeople was not able to work with local public schools, its reputation and
commitment to serving the community would be harmed.
Executed this 23rd day of July, 2023.
/s/ Charley Rejsek

Charley Rejsek

EXHIBIT F

AUSTIN DIVISION

DEFENSE FUND, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § CASE NO.
§
Education, §
§
Defendants. §
DECLARATION OF DAVID GROGAN
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, David Grogan declares:
1. My name is David Grogan. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am fully
2. I am the Director of the American Booksellers for Free Expression, Advocacy and
Public Policy (“ABFE”), a division of the American Booksellers Association (“ABA”). I have
been employed by the ABA since 2002.
3. ABA was founded in 1900 and is a national not-for-profit trade organization that
works to help independently owned bookstores grow and succeed.
DECLARATION OF DAVID GROGAN 1

4. ABA represents over 2,100 member companies operating in over 2,500 locations.
ABA’s core members are key participants in their communities’ local economy and culture. To
assist them, ABA provides education, information dissemination, business products, and services;
creates relevant programs; and engages in public policy, industry, and local-first advocacy.
5. The ABA has 156 members located in Texas who are vendors to school districts
subject to the Ban.
6. Our members each utilize different systems for tracking their sales and inventory,
and thus have different sets of records. Many of our members do not have complete records of all
sales they have ever made to school districts. As a result, they are unable to comply with the
requirements of House Bill 900 (the “Book Ban”).
7. The Book Ban places an extreme burden on booksellers to rate books for their
sexual content. It is impossible for any bookseller or bookstore owner to know the contents of
every book they sell or have sold, making the law impossible for any bookstore to follow. Over
four million new books were published in 2022, according to numerous sources. Fear of
inadvertently running afoul of the law would result in a bookseller erring on the side of caution,
thereby limiting students’ access to age-appropriate, relevant materials.
8. Importantly, the rating is not just for the book as a whole. The Book Ban requires
a bookseller to review every page of every book for any description of genitals, buttocks or breasts
or any description of mild sexual activity. As a result, booksellers will need to do much more than
review a handful of sexual health books or prominent biographies or fiction by people who are
known for writing about sexual topics—they will have to comb through every page of every book.
9. The Book Ban’s vague standards would also make it difficult for booksellers to
comply with the rating system’s criteria. The rating must be based on sexual content, but also on

contemporary standards of decency as to minors (this is the difference between sexually explicit
and sexually relevant). The community standard is entirely undefined and subjective—forcing
vendors to guess what a community thinks is appropriate for minors.
10. The Book Ban also fails to distinguish between minors based on age (5- versus 17-
year-olds), maturity (advanced reader versus academically challenged reader) or geographic
location (Houston versus Wichita Falls).
11. Concerns over this subjectivity would lead booksellers to err on the side of caution,
ultimately labeling a book as “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” that may not need this
rating. This could ultimately deprive students of age-appropriate works of literature. Just as an
example, these titles could include Dracula, Romeo & Juliet, Ulysses, Gone with the Wind, and
The Color Purple.
12. Additionally, due to the vagueness of the law, the Book Ban could result in the
banning of a book that is “sexually relevant” as to younger minors but appropriate for older
teenagers. What is appropriate to a 15-year-old may not be appropriate for a child under the age of
10. This law does not discern these nuances, and it places the onus on booksellers to make this
impossible determination.
13. The lack of specificity in the Book Ban will inevitably lead to inconsistent ratings
among our members and the broader bookselling community. It could also lead to financial
liability from authors unhappy with their rating, who may place blame on booksellers for lost sales.
14. Our members do not believe that they are best positioned to evaluate every book
for school use. They believe these decisions are best left to experienced, professional librarians,
with parental input.

15. Our members do not wish to participate in a public rating system that compels them
to rate books on criteria with which they do not agree. They are concerned that these ratings—
which are compelled by the State but published under their name—would be interpreted as their
own speech.
16. Our members believe these ratings are inherently subjective. The Book Ban’s
requirement that the ratings be listed online could lead to classic or award-winning books, such as
The Bluest Eye or The Color Purple, being branded with a proverbial Scarlet letter. It is not a
stretch to imagine that a book being label as “sexually explicit” or “sexually relevant” on the TEA’s
website could impact whether a parent buys a book at a bookstore for their child, thereby limiting
access to titles that could be a positive influence on, and potentially life-changing for, a given
child.
17. Further, because videos and movies that are based on books, like Academy Award-
winning Gone with the Wind, are often shown in public school classrooms, it is also likely that the
ratings provided to these books may foreclose their availability in the library, even while the movie
version is still shown in the classroom—creating inconsistent treatment of similar content.
18. Our members believe the State has no business determining what books are
acceptable for anyone to read. It is simply Orwellian for the State to do so. Our members further
believe the impact of these ratings will not only affect what books are available in schools, but
also extend into what books are sold in bookstores.
19. The Book Ban will undoubtedly lead to financial harm for our members, whether
it is due to a loss of book sales, potential exposure to liability from book authors, or because
bookstores need to hire additional staff to handle the burdensome responsibility of rating books
sold to schools. The average net operating profit of an independent bookstore (as reported in

ABA’s annual financial survey) from book sales in 2023 was 1.5 percent. Moreover, book prices
are set by the publishers and printed on the books. If bookstore expenses increase, a bookstore
owner cannot increase the price of books to offset this new expense.
20. Our members do not yet know the extent of the labor and resources that will be
necessary to handle rating the books due to the vagueness of the law. It is conceivable that
attempting to comply with the law will put a bookstore out of business. Aside from being
unconstitutional, this law is impractical and burdensome for bookstore businesses and will result
in a loss of net income.
21. Our members are also unclear what is required regarding recalling certain books.
The law does not make clear their responsibilities nor what they are required to do if a school does
not comply with such a recall. There are significant questions as to how the books that are recalled
will be handled and what further burdens this could place on a bookstore.
22. Our members are also concerned that the issuance of a recall would be interpreted
by school districts and the general public as an expression of the bookseller’s views and values,
when its speech is actually being compelled by the government.
23. It is impossible to overstate the importance of local businesses, such as independent
bookstores, to their communities. In economic terms, according to a civic economics study,
independent businesses recirculate a substantially greater proportion of their revenues back into
the local economy than do their chain competitors.
Executed this 23rd day of July, 2023.
/s/ David Grogan

David Grogan

EXHIBIT G

AUSTIN DIVISION

DEFENSE FUND, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
V. § CASE NO.
§
Education, §
§
Defendants. §
DECLARATION OF JEFF TREXLER
I, Jeff Trexler, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, do declare:
1. My name is Jeff Trexler. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and am fully
2. I am the Interim Director of the Board of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
(“CBLDF”). I have held this position since 2020.
3. The CBLDF is a nonprofit organization founded in 1986 dedicated to protecting
the legal rights of the comic arts community. With a membership that includes creators, publishers,
retailers, educators, librarians, and fans, the CBLDF has defended dozens of First Amendment
DECLARATION OF JEFF TREXLER 1

cases in courts across the United States and led important educational initiatives promoting comics
literacy and free expression.
4. In recent years, the comic arts have received widespread recognition for their value
in expressing serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific content in genres across demographic
categories, including middle-grade, young adult, and material addressed to older audiences. A
particularly significant historical milestone in this regard was the awarding of a Pulitzer Prize in
1992 to Art Spiegelman for Maus, a graphic novel about the Holocaust. Subsequent decades have
seen numerous other cartoonists and graphic novelists win significant awards, including Neil
Gaiman, author of The Sandman (World Fantasy Award, 1991); Marjane Satrapi, author of
Persepolis (Angoulême Coup de Couer Award, 2013); Alison Bechdel, author of Fun Home
(MacArthur Award, 2014); Ari Folman and David Polonsky, creators of Anne Frank’s Diary: The
Graphic Adaptation (Will Eisner Comic Industry Award and the Munich Documentation Center
for the History of National Socialism, 2019); Maia Kobabe, author of Gender Queer (American
Library Association Stonewall Book Award and Alex Award, 2020); and Mike Curato, author of
Flamer (Lambda Literary Award, 2021).
5. Comic artists, publishers and retailers are all subject to the requirements of House
Bill 900 (the “Book Ban”).
6. Despite their accolades and obvious literary merit, all of the award-winning works
listed above would likely be subject to restriction or removal under the definitions of “sexually
relevant” and “sexually explicit” contained in the Book Ban.
7. Determining where books may fall in light of these vague categories is not at all
clear, especially in light of recent mischaracterizations of certain graphic novels as obscene,
DECLARATION OF JEFF TREXLERU 2

pornographic, or otherwise “harmful to minors” despite the books’ demonstrable and widely
recognized artistic, meritorious, and serious value for minors.
8. Maus, for instance, is one of the most respected graphic works of our generation
and a pillar of Holocaust studies. But it contains a single image of a partially nude woman. Under
the Book Ban, that would appear to be enough to qualify as “sexually relevant” material, subject
to restriction and parental approval. That single image could also lead to a total ban, depending on
who is performing the multi-layered contextual analysis required by the Book Ban. Losing this
important work in libraries and classrooms would be a detriment to Holocaust education and a
disservice to those who attempt to keep its memory alive.
9. Similarly, the illustrated Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation could be
subject to restriction or ban based on a brief description of male and female body parts. This work
undoubtedly has societal valuable and clearly suitable for older students, but the Book Ban
provides no mechanism for evaluating works based on their suitability for certain ages, nor does it
allow for rating books on age-appropriate scale.
10. Should books like these be banned from public school libraries, Texas youth will
not have available to them accurate and significant renditions of history that both help to educate
about our past and help society not repeat grotesque wrongs, such as the Holocaust, in the future.
11. Many more works of equal merit are likely to be restricted or banned based on the
Book Ban.
12. The public nature of the Book Ban’s ratings could also have a stigmatizing effect
on comic works, depressing the market for these works.

13. For creators in the comic arts, these restrictions would substantially limit their
ability to write freely on topics of their choosing and to have their work purchased by school
districts and available to students.
14. Retail members and publishers are also subject to the rating system through their
sales to public schools. The Book Ban would force comic retailers to engage in compelled speech
by rating books based on criteria with which they do not agree.
15. These retailers would also be required to issue recalls for books that the State
disfavors, forcing them to participate in the removal of important works from library shelves—a
process with which they fundamentally disagree.
16. If the Book Ban is allowed to take effect, it will unconstitutionally compel the
speech of retailers and publishers, while chilling the speech of comic artists.
Executed this 24th day of July, 2023.
/s/ Jeff Trexler

Jeff Trexler

HB 900 Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HB 900 Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-00858 Document 6 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BOOK PEOPLE, INC., VBK, INC. d/b/a §

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ii

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,

Agency for Int’l Devel. v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l.,

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal.,

Book Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan,

Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n,

Campbell v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd.,

Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist.,

Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville,

Freedman v. State of Md.,

Ginsberg v. State of N. Y.,

Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas,

Johnson v. United States,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION iii

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson,

Knox v. Serv. Empl. Int’l Union,

Martin v. City of Struthers,

Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart,

Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, Miss.,

Penthouse Int’l, Ltd. v. McAuliffe,

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.,

Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin,

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.,

Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n,

State of Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A.,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION iv

Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex.,

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus,

U.S. v. United Foods, Inc.,

United States v. Hansen,

Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance,

Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n.,

W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,

Zimmerman v. City of Austin,

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..............................................................................................................................1

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 28.002(a)............................................................................................2, 3, 5, 11

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.021 ....................................................................................................1, 2, 11

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 33.21(a)................................................................................................3, 15, 16

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.001 ..........................................................................................................1, 2

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.001(3) .......................................................................................................11

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.002 ......................................................................................................1, 2, 8

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.002(b) .............................................................................................6, 13, 20

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.002(c)........................................................................................................10

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.0021 ..................................................................................................1, 4, 12

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION v

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.003 ..............................................................................................................1

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.004 ..............................................................................................................1

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.005 ..........................................................................................................1, 2

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.006 ..............................................................................................................1

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.007 ..............................................................................................................1

TEX. EDUC. CODE § 35.008 ..............................................................................................................1

TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.21 ...................................................................................................3, 5, 12, 16

TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.21(a)(1)..........................................................................................................4

TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.21(a)(4)..........................................................................................................3

TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.25 .........................................................................................................2, 5, 15

TEX. PEN. CODE § 43.25(a)(2) .........................................................................................................2

U.S. Constitution.................................................................................................................... passim

Texas Constitution ...........................................................................................................................1

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65 ........................................................................................................................1

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION vi